Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday March 02, 2010 @01:26PM
from the let's-blame-the-dedicated-server-fiasco dept.

RogueyWon writes "Kotaku is reporting that Infinity Ward, the development studio behind Modern Warfare 2, has been at the center of strange events recently. Jason West and Vince Zampella, two lead developers, have been fired by parent company Activision for 'breaches of contract and insubordination.' Speculation is rife as to the reasons behind this; following Modern Warfare 2's spectacular sales figures, it seems unlikely that the studio's performance could be to blame."

It's Robert A. Kotick's [wikipedia.org] business plan. Infinity Ward didn't want to work on more Modern Warfare games, as they previously stated, so Activision got angry as they obviously want to milk the cash cow more. It's even worse than how EA releases sports games every year (which still make sense to sports fans).

- business strategy focused on developing intellectual property which can be exploited over a long period, occasionally to the exclusion of creating new, risky or niche titles.- he stated that focusing on franchises that "have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises"- "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."

Yeah, Activision sounds just lovely. I just keep wondering why Vivendi doesn't put them in shape, but probably it brings money in now. I just hope Activision dies quickly. At least EA has started to bring some innovation again.

Earlier Activision gave trouble to Brutal Legend developers, and they said it good [twitter.com]:

Getting mad at Activision for this kind of thing is like getting mad at an ape for throwing feces. It's just how the beast communicates.

The games industry as a whole treats their programmers like crap. As a matter of fact, every romanticized occupation with a ton of people lined up outside the door treats their employees poorly. Apple pays less than their Silicon Valley neighbors because they get more applications and the job has that mystique. Coveted jobs = lower pay, higher stress, worse working conditions, more hours, etc.

Hollywood actors, screenwriters and directors all have strong unions. And when they strike (as the writers did in 2007 [wikipedia.org]), they are not easily replaced. If Joss Whedon walks off the set [blogspot.com] you can't just grab some random schmuck off the street to replace him.

Game developers are creative people too. They have just as much leverage as the showbiz creatives in New York and LA do. All they need to do to stop being treated like crap is to exercise it.

Hollywood actors, screenwriters and directors all have strong unions. And when they strike (as the writers did in 2007 [wikipedia.org]), they are not easily replaced. If Joss Whedon walks off the set [blogspot.com] you can't just grab some random schmuck off the street to replace him.

Game developers are creative people too. They have just as much leverage as the showbiz creatives in New York and LA do. All they need to do to stop being treated like crap is to exercise it.

As I recall, when the writers struck, they were supported by agents, actors, politicians, and many other unions. This gave the other side incentive to negotiate.

Who would go out on a financial limb to support striking game creators?

Who would go out on a financial limb to support striking game creators?

First of all the union would support the strikers via strike pay which varies based on country, union, etc. but could be 2/3 of normal pay. Secondly, governments have enacted some pretty strong labor laws. You can't fire striking employees and simply go out and hire new people to replace them even if their job is trivially replaced (eg: a window cleaner). That applies even more for a developer who is difficult to replace due to the learning curve of jumping into a specialized software project midstream.

What about unions that artificially restrict labour supply? I have a friend who is a movie cameraman. He had to join the union or else he could get no work - no studio was allowed to hire him, even if he was the best cameraman in the whole world. Nor could the studios fire bad or lazy cameramen and hire him instead. That sort of lock on labour mobility is just plain wrong.

As long as many more people want to be game developers than can be, most game developers are considered very, very replaceable. I have to think it's hard to make a union work in an environment like that.

This is much less true for, for example, people who have been in the industry ten years and have shipped multiple successful titles -- but those people are relatively fewer and farther between.

The key difference between programmers and actors/screenwriters/directors is that big publishing houses like Activision probably regard them as expendable. I'm sure the bean counters figure if the geeks organize, they'll just fire them and hire cheap replacements in China/India.

Which would be just as well, because the quality of the product and support will plummet, ensuring the death of the beast.

Great idea I always loved the idea of somebody who I have never meet negoating my salary on my behalf and not getting a final say all while taking a cut of my pay check because they said they did a good job.

EA releases sports games every year (which still make sense to sports fans)

Before consoles were connected to the Internet, it made sense because you always wanted to have the latest rosters and usually the graphics would get incrementally better. These days the quality of the graphics has pretty much plateaued nd game play remains more or less the same. Now that these things can be updated online, there's no compelling reason for releasing new games every year other than to make money, very much like colle

I'm sure using names/rosters does incur some kind of licensing cost, so I don't actually have a big problem with charging for them. However, I do tend to agree with you that this should be more in line with a $1-10 DLC than a $70 new title.

- "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression."

Well firing your top two devs will certainly help you with that goal. Imagine anyone's review, "You think you're *that* special? Shit son, we just fired our top two guys, now work 90 hours a week without over-time or you're out the door too!"

Sadly, since this is the gaming industry, this cheese wad Kotick will not only get away with this abusive behavior, but he'll be rewarded (like you said, it brings in money). In most other industries, when a CEO tries to create a similar culture, the good people jump ship right away (go to the competition, or start their own company), and the average people jump ship as soon as the economy improves, and this works to punish the company by losing a lot of brain power. However, in the gaming industry, all you have to do is license an engine, hire and teach someone from the endless supply of sucker.. er.. talented prospects, and you're right back on track - abusing the new employee.

It's always an interesting story when a big company decides to fire people who just made them a load of money.

When are game developers going to understand what the movie-making workers have known for many decades: That they need to be in a union.

Today, just about every body working on the movies you watch is organized. The writers, the directors, the cinematographers, the special-effects people. Notice that this has not "destroyed" the movie industry or even hurt profits one little bit. All it's done is provide some protection to the people who are actually bringing you the goods from the worst impulses of the flabby asses who sit in the boardrooms and CEO suites.

As we've seen with Germany, having the entire workforce unionized is not only good for the workers, but it's good for business and it's good for the entire country's economy. Germany is probably the country in the world with the most favorable labor laws and the strongest unions. Yet, they are also the NUMBER ONE EXPORTING NATION, with exports almost 300% of China's. They're also the country in the EU that has the biggest trade surplus and the most cash in the coffers. When they bail out Greece, it's going to be Germany that puts up the dough.

Socialism is good for progress. In a climate of rapidly changing technology, a country has to be able to shift gears quickly. Whole outmoded industries need to be able to just die painlessly, without hurting the people in those industries. We need a social safety net so that people can leave old, obsolete careers without fear, and educational programs that will enable us to rapidly retool our society to take advantage of the next big thing.

What is socialism, then? Look at most of the countries that consider themselves socialist democracies, and you will see they attempt to function as I've described. Socialism is not communism, it does not mean collective control over all resources, and it does not mean the state owns all property.

Socialism is not communism, it does not mean collective control over all resources, and it does not mean the state owns all property.

Actually, the classic definition of socialism is precisely collective (which doesn't necessarily mean state - it would be commune in anarcho-socialism) ownership of means of production, and collective administration of resources.

Communism is much more than that - it's supposed to be a classless and stateless society where any such collective ownership does not have to be enforced, and is inherent in the behavior of all members of the society.

By definitions above, there is a line between "market socialism" and "social capitalism". The former is when some amount of free trade is permitted, but not with respect to means of production and natural resources. A typical showcase would be late Tito's Yugoslavia.

"Social capitalism" is where you can actually buy and sell factories and land, for example, but where all business transactions are regulated to ensure that they do not cause unacceptable harm to the society at large - this is what most Western countries today are.

By the way, while I'm at nitpicking the terms, there is a difference between "social democracy" (which is what most countries actually label themselves) and "socialist democracy".

The reason why I go into this kind of nitpicking is because, for too many people, socialism in its pure sense is unacceptable, and when you use the word merely to denote some socially conscious policies, you get an extremely negative reaction. Just look at some of the replies to your original post - I see someone has already brought up Cuba and North Korea...

You do know the red states take more Federal money than they pay in taxes, right? Funny how people always like socialism that benefits them, isn't it? Funny how they can feed from the trough, and at the same time, claim it is immoral to feed from the trough, so no one else should.

The Kibbutzim? Okay, well, that was socialism, but the situation is complex, and the failures of the kibbutzim is not necessarily an indictment of socialism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz [wikipedia.org]

That all being said, flamebait? Really? I hate it just as much when it happens to people I disagree with as when it happens to me. "Flamebait" and "Troll" are not synonymous to "I disagree." I don't need your help, reactionary mods, I can make my arguments just fine without your 'helpful' down-moderation of my opponents.

It's important to note that while Scandinavia has an awesome social safety net, it does so by maintaining pretty much the lowest corporate tax rates in the Western world (personal taxes pay those bills). Low corporate tax rates don't sit well with many American socialists, who I find see corporations as enemies rather than partners.

Also, I can state from experience that there is a definite nanny-state feel to life in northern Europe. People who like a lot of freedom in life, whether it's home schooling of children, lower taxes, personal privacy, or whatever, won't like it there much.

Canada has a good balance - a decent safety net but lower taxes than the OECD average and tremendous personal privacy protection and personal freedom. It's not really a socialist country other than healthcare though, and even then, there is a parallel for-pay system. Union memberships are at an all-time low too.

If anything, this is a great example of why they shouldn't be unionized. Yes, they got fired. And yes, there appears to be some weird shit going on with it. What might have happened with a union though?

Management would have made their lives hell until they quit. Nothing verifiable, certainly, but little things here and there until the developers left on their own.

Compare that to now, and you'll see that the workers actually experience less stress this way than if they were unionized.

Yeah, Activision sounds just lovely. I just keep wondering why Vivendi doesn't put them in shape, but probably it brings money in now. I just hope Activision dies quickly. At least EA has started to bring some innovation again.

And that's the rub. By focusing on time-tested franchises that are basically guaranteed to be profitable, rather than new properties, they increase revenues and reduce risk. Both are good from a corporate standpoint, in general. Unfortunately, creativity doesn't always pay the bills. It just drives home that Activision is a production company that happens to specialize in games, rather than a game publisher.

That said, Kotick obviously understands the downsides of this approach. He even stated he regre

I will say that it's reassuring that the Infinity Ward team was ready to move past Modern Warfare 2...they are obviously a talented group of people, and it would be nice to see them put together another high budget title that has nothing to do with Call of Duty.

It's weird...as EA has slowly been redeeming itself (they still have a long way to go, but they are better than they were), Activision has been taking over the role as "biggest douche in the industry".

I will say that it's reassuring that the Infinity Ward team was ready to move past Modern Warfare 2...they are obviously a talented group of people, and it would be nice to see them put together another high budget title that has nothing to do with Call of Duty.

The only way to get out of a franchise is to jump ship and create a new company. You are essentially taking a risk that the current company won't. The other thing is only create a new game engine if you have the time talent and a real need. Too many

Infinity Ward didn't want to work on more Modern Warfare games, as they previously stated, so Activision got angry as they obviously want to milk the cash cow more.

You'd think companies would learn that Activision knows best, especially after those morons at Harmonix jumped ship to do their own thing. Did anything ever happen with that whole "guitar hero with other instruments" thingie they wanted to do?

I'm surprised he's so forthright about it. The modern office environment of cubefarms is deliberately designed to induce at least a little stress, because stress tends to focus your efforts in a step-by-step manner.

This method actually makes sense for most office jobs and perhaps even the "codemonkey" developers who generally only work on one part of a larger design at any given time. It's absolutely counterproductive to those who need to make software designs, and I'd imagine even more so for game designs.

A company is legally liable if they list the reason for termination, especially since none of it has been proven. All a company can legally state is that the person was employed and that they are no longer with the company as of a specific date.

I worked for a company that terminated all the developers. They came in to find the doors to their offices rekeyed and locked.

Companies can terminate you for any reason at any time unless contractually obligated to do so otherwise.

Of if I understand this right (and I’m very sure I do), their plan is to completely and totally remove all creativity, and just focus on milking cash cows... Which of course makes no sense, since after a few iterations, they will be empty and their business, now unable to come up with new ideas, will die.

Yeah, short-term cash with complete ignorance of long-term sustainability is all the craze nowadays. It’s managers that just care to look good until they move on to the next company, leaving the

Now for the promised strange and, yes, disturbing comments on Kotick's part. What may have been music to bean counters' ears still has ours ringing, as he described tailoring developer bonuses to "really [reward] profit and nothing else" and how an air of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" is promoted within the company with the goal of "keeping people focused on the deep depression." You know, so they focus on profit and nothing else. It's all to plan, though, seeing as Kotick confided that, "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

You know what the funny thing about this stereotype is? Burger line workers at McDonald's make the most money, besides the shift managers. In fact, the money they make isn't bad considering what their job involves. When I worked at McDonalds when I was 16 (almost 10 years ago...geez) the sandwich line guys made something like $8.50 an hour. Keep in mind, that was between 1999 and 2000...

Plus, McDonalds is one of the few places you can start out at the bottom and work your way practically to the top.

It's funny you mention this, because it was actually the reason why I stopped working there. After a year or so, they wanted to put me through management training. The money would have been awesome, and I easily could have made a career out of it...but I didn't really want to stay with McDonalds for the rest of my professional life.

You are absolutely right though, they hardly ever look to external hiring for the big positions...they try to promote internal people as much as they can.

My brother-in-law started out as a fry cook as recent immigrant with practically no English skills. 20 years or so later, he's a director responsible for 500+ stores

Much like the NBA... anyone 'can' get to the top. Also like the NBA, most won't. There simply aren't enough positions at the top to allow more than a fraction of a percent to get there, no matter how hard everyone tries.

Oh, and also for the record, I LOVED working at McDonalds when I was younger. I was the only native English speaker in the store, so I got put on the "first" register for the drive through...that meant I got to sit in that little hole taking drive-through orders and taking money. It was AWESOME. Take money from the guy parked at the window while entering the next order. Didn't have to worry about putting food together, dealing with customers wanting extra stuff, dealing with a slippy floor or a hot kitchen...it really was a lot of fun. I only made $6 an hour, but all I needed the money for was putting gas in my truck and getting a little something building up for when I moved out.

I only worked there a little over a year, but it was a TON of fun. Having fun working there required nothing more than realizing that problem customers were bitching about cheese and french fries. CHEESE. AND. FRENCH. FRIES. How sad does your life have to be to complain about fast food? Obviously worse than working at McDonalds, ha!

It was AWESOME. Take money from the guy parked at the window while entering the next order. Didn't have to worry about putting food together, dealing with customers wanting extra stuff, dealing with a slippy floor or a hot kitchen...it really was a lot of fun.

Actually, that sounds really boring. Unless you could sit there and play video games or goof off with friends I think I'd go mad doing that for a year.

Not really. Back in my teens, I loved interacting with people. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd say that close to 1/4 of our customers during the dinner shift (which is what I worked) were regulars...people that showed up 2 or more times a week. It was cool once I started getting to know them.

My job required listening to two different people at the same time (window and ordering speaker), calculate change, AND entering an order all at the same time. It was a bit hectic...but still a lot of fun:-)

I had a fastfood job one summer, needed money for car insurance since I blew it all on a 386dx-40.

The job was okay, but I wouldn't say "fun" and I was reprimanded for my one attempt to liven it up by making smiley faces in mustard. (Burger King rules: 3 rings ketchup, 2 rings mustard; no smiley faces!)

Working full-time in the games industry is much more fun, even with crunch. Besides paying better (well less than other IT jobs) It's more creative, and you know you're making the world a better place... or

Thats exactly the kind of attitude I'd expect from someone who has never worked for fun.

The idea of "working for fun" is in most cases, a "you are your own boss", kind of situation. All entertainment industries are highly based on this premise. A developer has an idea for a game, a director has an Idea for a movie, an Artist has an Idea for a song. Their paycheck might come from the CEO of the Game company, the movie studios, or the music label, but for the most part they have complete and utter freedom to

I could see those 2 guys, and a handful of guys in infinity ward leaving Activision for a fulfilling new career in a brand new startup, led by these 2 devs.

I really hope this is what happens...the fact that they stood up for what they believed and didn't want to continue diluting the franchise (despite the inevitable big paycheck it would likely include) means they aren't just talented, but actually care about what they produce.

Just because you are talented doesn't automatically make you passionate, and vice versa. These guys are apparently talented AND passionate, an awesome combination when it comes to game developers. Between their work experience and the

probably whispered "union" and he and all his close contacts were immediately fired.

If that were true, then both of them would have some pretty serious lawsuit material. It's against the law for firing someone for wanting to unionize. Yeah, you can cover up the firing by giving another reason, but there are plenty of lawyers who would take the case (and win) anyway, since the feds are inclined to look suspiciously at any firing in close proximity to a unionization attempt.

Infinity Ward is in California, where non-compete clauses are automatically void. I believe (though I'm not an expert by any means) that they can get back to work immediately should an offer present itself.

Non-competes are only valid in California if the company which holds the non-compete pays competitive salary during the non-compete time (basicly pay them to not work). Since most companies don't do that, they just say you cannot work for the competitors because they say so, most will be thrown out when challenged in court.

Without knowing their contract\non-compete it would be difficult to say whether it's void or not.

Unless their contracts are really odd, there will be some sort of compensation associated with the non-compete clasue... so, if they do have that kind of contract, they should end up getting paid for those six months of doing nothing.

Nothing, that is, except consider the next game they will start to build for somebody other than Activision, once those six months are up.

non compete clauses are not enforceable when the clause will cause you undue hardship.

I.E. you are a game programmer, and your clause says you cant program at a competitor. Well EVERYONE is their competitor, there fore the clause is 100% unenforceable.

Remember, just because it's in a contract or a lawyer says it does not make it real nor enforceable. I personally strike out any clause like that, initial next to my strike out and ten sign it. I have never signed a contract that I did not modify.

That's basically what I meant. Yes, the IP of MW might be with Activision, but who cares about the IP? I care about the game, and the game was made by the people who were just kicked out the door.

IP has become something in games, but it's not be-all, end-all. If you take the IP and fire the people that made it to the valuable IP it is, you can squeeze out another crappy knockoff with some cheap hires, maybe even two if you don't blunder too badly, but then your IP is dead. Games are still made by people. No

Do you care whether the next MW is called MW? They can keep the IP, it's not like "multiplayer shooter in a modern war setting" is limited to a certain name.

Yes, it won't be called MW. So what? Viral marketing will get the word out that this is the next game from the people of IW, the makers of MW, and that they just can't call it MW but it's still the successor (which they will heavily deny for liability purposes).

Think gamers care too much what it will be called if it plays like MW and feels like MW and l

It's hard to use fresh and new with pretty much anything A-Title in games these days. Simple logic will tell you why.

A-Titles cost a metric ton of greens. The very last thing you want after spending 7-8 digits in front of a fat "USD" is to find out that your idea is basically something that looks great on paper but fails completely as a game (unless you put enough PR behind it, for reference, see Spore).

So what do A-Studios do? Rehash a formula that works. Simple as that. The next FPS, the next RTS, the nex

Though name recognition worked for Obsidian and Gas Powered games. I never would have bought a game from either of them if it wasn't for name recognition, or recognition of where the devs came from. It helped that they made decent products, too, but part of what drove my purchases was WHO made the products as well, and the other projects they were involved in (Diablo and Total Annihilation, respectively).

I just started playing the MW series with MW2. What is the benefit of having servers? The match making component seems to work fine. If you want to play with friends you can all join the same party. If you want to host a private game, you can setup your own match and invite whoever you want. The only lag I've ever dealt with in the game was network lag and not hardware lag. It seems like their P2P model works pretty well. I live in southern California and often times end up playing with other people

Here's hoping the pair were trying add a dedicated server mode in addition to IWNET, or that Activision is going to implement dedicated servers, or that someone at that company actually cares about the end user.Otherwise, one of the best games I've played in terms of playability, weapons load out, and graphics is hobbled by IWNET, "migrating Host", no admin, no kicks, to many hacks (PC side) no end user mods, the list goes on.

I don't use consoles so not up on that, I have heard rumors of hacking occurring using the IWNET style connection.The constant interruption in game play is what I can't tolerate, choppiness, never play with the same group of guys, lousy VOIP set up (see Quakewars for a good VOIP setup). to make it short FRUSTRATED.

Strange everyone immediately is so confident Kotick is in the wrong here. TFA has them being rolled out the door by security and there's a SEC filing for litigation (admittedly, it doesn't say who will be the pursuer). Maybe Kotick is an asshole (never met him myself) but there's a lot of possibilities here. I understand the US favours employees less than it does in the UK, but over here being thrown out the door either means the company is about to get shafted by an employment tribunal or those guys did so

Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision, dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him when he arrives and says "Bobby, out of all the people up there, you remind me most of myself, so I'm going to let you choose your punishment for your first thousand years."

The two start at a short hallway labelled "First Timers" and stop at the first door. Inside is an old man, screaming, having his skin peeled off in 1 inch strips. The devil explains "At the beginning of the day, his flesh is renewed. By nightfall, he is nothing but a pile of organs hanging onto a skeleton. This is the only punishment where you get a few hours rest every night." Bobby feels a bit nervous about the long future ahead of him.

They walk to the next door. Inside is an even older man, screaming louder than the first man, and he's slowly being lowered into a vat of acid. The devil explains "This punishment lasts all day. It starts at the toes and works its way up. When you are completely burned away, it starts over. Some say that after the first 800 years, though, it feels more like a massage than a punishment. I suppose it's not so bad if you really enjoyed hot tubs when you were alive." Bobby starts sweating at the thought of his eternal reward.

They come up to the third, and last door of the hallway. Inside is an EXTREMELY old man, screaming at the top of his lungs. A gorgeous young woman, chained to him by the ankle, is giving him a passionate blowjob. The devil grins "This punishment may look like fun, but after the first few hours, you get tired, but you may never rest; not for a thousand years. This punishment is one of endurance. Now that you've seen your choices, which one will it be?" Bobby Kotick doesn't take long to decide which of the punishments he'll undergo. "I'll take the last one. The blowjob one."

The devil accepts Bobby's choice with a nodded bow, and opens the third door. He enters in, unlocks the chain on the woman's leg and whispers in her ear "Your replacement is here, you've been relieved."

They are not programmers or lead developers.They were co-founders and Chief Technology Officer/President and the Studio Head/Chief Creative Officer of the company.Which I guess means they were in charge of everyone at Infinity Ward, or pretty high up anyway.Before they were acquired, that would make them senior management. Afterwards, middle management.Since their titles included "game director" I guess that means they also liked to dabble with the design when time permitted.